Tea Party Could Stir Afghan Policy

A U.S. Marine patrols Tuesday in Kunjak, a town in southern Afghanistan. Observers wonder if tea-party legislators will reset debate on the war.
Reuters

By

Nathan Hodge

Updated Oct. 27, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, often compares the "Kabul clock" to the "Washington clock" when describing how different levels of urgency in the two capitals shape Afghanistan policy.

Observers now wonder whether the expected arrival of a new crop of conservative legislators after the U.S. midterm elections—and a likely Republican takeover of at least the House—may speed up, slow down or even reset the clock in Washington.

At issue is whether candidates backed by tea-party activists may force a shift in the terms of debate over the war in Afghanistan. While Republicans are traditionally hawkish on defense—and foreign policy hasn't emerged as a major campaign issue—some GOP candidates have expressed skepticism about the scale of U.S. military involvement in the region.

President Barack Obama has escalated the U.S.'s military involvement in Afghanistan. By the spring of 2009, he had ordered an additional 21,000 troops there, and last December, he announced a 30,000-troop surge, while setting a July 2011 deadline to begin a phased withdrawal.

Ken Buck, Republican candidate for Senate from Colorado, has been critical of what he has described as a long-term "nation-building" effort in Afghanistan. In a statement provided by his campaign, Mr. Buck said the U.S. needed to "reach realistic goals before drawing down troops" there to a minimal presence.

Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, has been more broadly skeptical of military priorities. In a videotaped statement on his website, Mr. Paul said the Iraq war "inflamed an entire region," although he said he would have voted in support of declaring war in Afghanistan. With the party's official platform short on specifics—the Republican Pledge to America platform makes only one reference to Afghanistan—many in Washington are speculating about how the incoming class will view the issue.

"Very few people know how a lot of these upstart candidates actually do think about foreign policy and national security," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Ms. Pletka said there has been an eagerness to ascribe isolationist views to candidates, particularly those with tea-party affiliations. "Every experience that I have had, and it's been limited, is that these are very traditionalist, strong America, resource the military, win-the-wars kind of guys," she said.

In platform statements, some tea-party backed candidates voice support for strong national defense. Sharron Angle, the Republican challenging Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), describes herself as a "staunch supporter" of the military on an online issues page. GOP candidate Dan Benishek, running to represent Michigan's first congressional district, says on his campaign website that the U.S. "must aggressively pursue the war on terror."

Much will also depend on who gets key committee assignments. In the House of Representatives, the Armed Services Committee is expected to undergo a major transformation, with the chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), facing a tough re-election fight and other members expected to lose their seats.

Control of the committee itself will shift to Republicans if they win a majority in the House.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior foreign-policy expert at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said the Afghan war in many respects created a marriage of convenience between the current administration and congressional Republicans.

"Obama is quite committed to this part of the world and this war, having campaigned on its importance and subsequently having tripled combat forces there," he said. "The Republicans, by contrast, are big supporters of the war on terror and Gen. Petraeus."

A major Democratic defeat in November—as well as a lack of tangible progress in Afghanistan—might weaken that alliance, Mr. O'Hanlon added. "At that point, I could imagine many Democrats pushing harder for a downsizing in Afghanistan irrespective of Obama's position," he said.

A House GOP aide said that Republicans were playing the role of the "loyal opposition" on Afghanistan.

"While they supported the overall strategy, they raised questions about whether Mr. Obama was properly resourcing the strategy," the aide said.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.